On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jesper Tverskov
<jesper(_dot_)tverskov(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Sorry for being unclear.
With XSLT 2.0 we can transform XML input with xsd-types to XML output
with xsd-types easily because XSLT also use xsd-types. Great. If we
have to do the same in C# or Java, etc, we will have to convert
between two type systems two times. This can be done automatically,
and I listed XML data binding as example. Here we use an XML Schema
schema to generate classes with types of another type system.
So here is my question:
Is the cost of type system conversion, when we don't use XSLT, a real
problem at least for an important subset of use cases?
Whenever you say "XML", you implicitly say "text", and for all programming
systems that aren't dealing with all data as strings, some conversion between
binary and string has to be done. You ought to know all the consequences
of passing binary data between systems, and the trade-off between the
basic choices.
Binding between XML Schema types and, say, Java types is not a 100% fit.
But it is amply sufficient for real-world applications. Having all X[A-Z]+
systems adhere to this common typing system has the benefit that
a conversion library between XML and binary can be re-used.
-W
Cheers,
Jesper Tverskov
http://www.xmlkurser.dk
http://www.xmlplease.com
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--